If I am saved by faith alone, why do I need to read the Bible?

[PRmerger]

But not Roman Catholic. That’s the point.

The Catholic Church is not Roman, kyle. It is one, holy, catholic and universal, and it is composed of 23 rites, all in union with the Bishop of Rome. The Latin rite, also known as the Roman rite, is the largest, but one would be mistaken in assuming that all Catholics are Roman Catholics.

At any rate, you have the* infallible *Catholic Church to thank for discerning that the Gospel of John is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not.

 

[PRmerger]

No substantiation, just Catholic proclamation.

Are you under the impression that Wikipedia is under the influence of the Vatican?

That is NOT meant to be a dig just so you know. I’m looking for root evidence like how we know that God is trinitarian because of the full context of Scripture.

Well, actually, kyle, the only way you know God is trinitarian is because…

the Catholic Church proclaimed this to be true.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
Ok. But how is it that you know that the Gospel of John is inspired Scripture? Who decided this?

The Holy Spirit discerning it.

Can you explain how the HS spirit discerned it? The HS is God, so how can it discern something it already knows?

I have another question for you: Can you provide the chapter and verse where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark?

 

[pablope]

Are you under the impression that Wikipedia is under the influence of the Vatican?

Well, actually, kyle, the only way you know God is trinitarian is because…

the Catholic Church proclaimed this to be true.

Yes, and it is part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

But not Roman Catholic. That’s the point.

That is what point? There are 22 non-Roman (Latin)Rites in the Catholic Church that are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

It wasn’t Roman Catholic. It was the Early Christian Church, The councils belonged to the One Christian Church which was catholic.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, kyle. That term was applied by the Reformers as an insult to the successor of Peter, and all those in communion with him. The early Christian Church was entirely Catholic, all over the world. There were Greek Rites, Roman (Latin ) Rites, Assyrian, etc. The Holy Scriptures were penned, preserved, promulgated and canonized by this ONE CHURCH, the same throughout the whole world.

No substantiation, just Catholic proclamation. That is NOT meant to be a dig just so you know. I’m looking for root evidence like how we know that God is trinitarian because of the full context of Scripture.

Root evidence of what? That the Catholic Church produced the Bible? Your theory presupposes that the lungs of the Church that became separated in 1054 were not Catholic in 382 when the canon was closed.

No other Christians existed. They were all Catholic.

 

[kylemccloughan]

That is what point? There are 22 non-Roman (Latin)Rites in the Catholic Church that are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, kyle. That term was applied by the Reformers as an insult to the successor of Peter, and all those in communion with him. The early Christian Church was entirely Catholic, all over the world. There were Greek Rites, Roman (Latin ) Rites, Assyrian, etc. The Holy Scriptures were penned, preserved, promulgated and canonized by this ONE CHURCH, the same throughout the whole world.

Root evidence of what? That the Catholic Church produced the Bible? Your theory presupposes that the lungs of the Church that became separated in 1054 were not Catholic in 382 when the canon was closed.

No other Christians existed. They were all Catholic.

The were not subject to the primacy of Rome.

 

[kylemccloughan]

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, kyle. That term was applied by the Reformers as an insult to the successor of Peter, and all those in communion with him. The early Christian Church was entirely Catholic, all over the world. There were Greek Rites, Roman (Latin ) Rites, Assyrian, etc. The Holy Scriptures were penned, preserved, promulgated and canonized by this ONE CHURCH, the same throughout the whole world.

 

[PRmerger]

The were not subject to the primacy of Rome.

Please give us an example of a church in the 5th century that was not “subject to the primacy of Rome.” Where was this church? Who were they “subject” to?

 

[kylemccloughan]

Please give us an example of a church in the 5th century that was not “subject to the primacy of Rome.” Where was this church? Who were they “subject” to?

The Bishop of Rome was not supreme at the table. I believe the term is “first among equals”.

 

[kylemccloughan]

He played an advisory role in the councils. He did not head them up.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t agree. Roman Catholic is a proper name. The word catholic means universal and it is not a proper name, it is an adjective to describe what Jesus’ Church is. One Holy catholic and apostolic. If other Protestants use RC to show insult, I surely don’t. Roman Catholic is a proper name.

I am sorry to tell you, kyle, that you do not get to decide what is a proper name and what is not.

The Catholic Church, in existence for 2000 years, has claimed the name “catholic” and so it shall be known evermore.

In fact, if a visitor comes to your town and asks “Where is the local Catholic Church?” only a fool would point him to the Church of the Storefront Gospel of the Nazarenes. Every local in town will point to the Church that has a priest, is obedient to his bishop, celebrates the Eucharist, prays to saints, venerates Mary, has statues, crucifixes, an altar…

 

[PRmerger]

The Bishop of Rome was not supreme at the table. I believe the term is “first among equals”.

Can you provide a church from the 5th century that was not “subject to the primacy of Rome.” Where was this church? Who were they “subject” to? Who was “at the table” with the Bishop of Rome that represented this church.

Names, please! And references, of course.

 

[Mark_David]

“If I am saved by faith alone, why do I need to read the Bible?”
This is one of the things in Protestantism that made less and less sense to me over time. Not to mention the letter of James (no wonder Luther hated it; so much for sola scriptura), and every other verse that made it crystal clear that we’re to be judged by our works. But, yes - if it’s only about the Holy Spirit working in us, we wouldn’t need to read anything in order to know how to behave. Calvinism made sense to me at first, but the more you tug at it, the more it falls apart. You can’t dance around the rest of the Bible just to take Romans 9 at face value. There’s an entire Bible there for us. The whole book is infinitely more coherent when you ditch the idea that it all rests on a few verses that Paul wrote.

 

[Brother_Steve]

Most Protestants believe that our own works affect our salvation is a Roman Catholic belief is un-biblical and not the doctrine of the early church. But the writings of the Early Church Fathers clearly demonstrate that it was a universally held belief that our works and obedience play a very major role in our salvation. This challenges a long held viewpoint which Protestants inherited from the Reformers. If we look and see what the Fathers had to say exactly. As Clement of Rome, a companion of the Apostle Paul and Bishop wrote," It is necessary, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of good works. For He forewarns us, 'Behold, the Lord comes and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." Also Justin Martyr wrote,“And so we have received this teaching, that if men by their works show themselves worthy of His design, they are deemed worthy of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.” We can see that this was not something which the early church took lightly. Those who wish to play down our role, via good works, in our salvation should heed Clement of Alexandria when he writes,"…but attaching slight importance to the works that lead to salvation, they fail to make necessary preparation for attaining the objects of their hope." This statement could easily apply to the majority of Protestantism today. It is obvious that the Reformers went so far to distinguish themselves from the Roman Catholic Church that they threw the proverbial" baby out with the bath water". Hippolytus, another Bishop of the early church wrote,“The Gentiles, by faith in Christ, prepare for themselves eternal life through good works.” Clement of Rome also wrote," We are not justified by ourselves. Nor by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works done in holiness of heart. But by that faith which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning." We see in the Fathers, that a gift is no less a gift just because it it conditioned on obedience. Salvation is a gift of God which He bestowed upon those who love, obey and serve Him. This obedience we speak of is not solely in and of our own power, but is dependent on our own efforts and the gift of God’s power. And it is the same with our salvation. Salvation is offered to us as a matter of grace. We do not have to be righteous before hand in order to receive it. Nor do we have to atone for the sins of the past,nor earn the New Birth. Christ is our only atonement! But our works and efforts do play a part in our salvation! We must repent, believe, and obey. But, as stated earlier, our obedience is dependent on our efforts AND the power of God, which He imparts to us as a matter of grace. So, it is clear to see that our salvation begins and ends with grace. And we are able to say with the Apostle Paul,that, we are saved by grace, not by works. But at the same time we are able to understand and apply the words of James when he states that we are saved by works, and not by faith alone.

 

[rinnie]

I think your reasoning is very sound. You are correct that Protestants emphasise Faith Alone and Bible Alone, when they confront Catholicism, but then when they apply it, without reference to Catholicism, they start to make exceptions… such as the one you mention, that to be saved, on must read the Bible.

I see this also. They say it is faith alone not by works. But then they say yes you must do works, but your works won’t help save you, but you must do works:hypno: Then it turns into the regular wheels on the bus go round and round.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Yes, and it is part of Sacred Tradition.

No, it is in Scripture. That is why it is believed by all Christians.

 

[rinnie]

The Bishop of Rome was not supreme at the table. I believe the term is “first among equals”.

oh so first among others has no supremency about it then? There are days when responses really give me a chuckle. This is one of em.

 

[kylemccloughan]

I am sorry to tell you, kyle, that you do not get to decide what is a proper name and what is not.

The Catholic Church, in existence for 2000 years, has claimed the name “catholic” and so it shall be known evermore.

In fact, if a visitor comes to your town and asks “Where is the local Catholic Church?” only a fool would point him to the Church of the Storefront Gospel of the Nazarenes. Every local in town will point to the Church that has a priest, is obedient to his bishop, celebrates the Eucharist, prays to saints, venerates Mary, has statues, crucifixes, an altar…

It is a matter of opinion on what churches are 'catholic". Only the “Catholic” church is the church with this as a proper name. Just like the Anglican church. It is surely catholic. But it is not Catholic. This seems to be a circular word game. I think we both understand the difference.

 

[kylemccloughan]

oh so first among others has no supremency about it then? There are days when responses really give me a chuckle. This is one of em.

Can you show me in your Bible where that supremacy of the pope is? That response might just me a churckle. Share the laughter!

 

[guanophore]

The were not subject to the primacy of Rome.

Every Christian on the face of the earth is subject, kyle. You may not recognize that fact, but it changes nothing. It only makes you a rebellious subject of the successor of Peter.

Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and put him in charge of feeding and caring for the flock. Jesus did not say “the borders of the flock you are to feed and care for lie within these boundaries”. He has One Flock, and he placed one person in the position of responsibility over their care and feeding. The earlyl church did nothing without Peter, and after him, his successors.

You are imagining divisions where they do not exist. There were no early Christians that were not submitted to their bishops, in union with the successor of Peter. Any who rejected the Apsotolic authority were considered apostates and heretics.